Metabones—the company known for its lens adapters and focal reducing Speed Boosters—has released a new Speed Booster that ought to have Pentax Q users salivating a bit. It's called the Q666 0.5x 'Devils Speed Booster', because it allows Pentax Q owners to mount Nikon F and G lenses and produce a working aperture of f/0.666 when a lens with an f/1.2 aperture is used wide open.

The booster has a magnification of 0.5x and produces a 2.8x crop factor when used with the Q and Q10, and a 2.3x factor with the Q7 and Q-S1.

Metabones has used six elements in four groups inside this new Speed Booster, and has incorporated what it calls a ‘long-throw clickless aperture ring’ for G lenses that has eight marked positions. The adapter is compatible with all Nikkor and Nikon-mount lenses except the Nikkor 2.1cm f/4 and the 20mm f/2.8 AI-S.

The idea for the adapter was launched in August, but this is the first version to emerge. Metabones promises one for Pentax K mount lenses as well.

Metabones Devil's Speed Booster Q666 0.50x

Caldwell Photographic Inc. and Metabones® is pleased to announce the Speed Booster Q666, a.k.a. “The Devil’s Speed Booster”, exclusively for Pentax Q series cameras. With its 0.5x magnification and world-record f/0.666 maximum speed it is crazy wicked fast. So make a deal with the devil today and turn your Pentax Q with its back-illuminated sensor into a monster low-light machine unlike anything ever seen in photography. Attach an f/1.2 lens and stop down a little to see how Stanley Kubrick made do with f/0.7 for filming those famous candle-lit scenes in “Barry Lyndon”. Or open up all the way to f/0.666 and probe the darkness in a way that no photographer has ever been able to do until now.

With an advanced 6-element optical design, the Q666 packs lots of optical horsepower in a small package. Sharpness is excellent even at f/0.666, and is downright superb if you stop down to f/1.0. Distortion is very low, with a maximum value of, naturally, 0.666%. And thanks to the back-illuminated sensor used in Pentax Q cameras, the full f/0.666 maximum aperture can be utilized with minimal pixel vignetting effects commonly seen in other cameras used with high-speed lenses.

Figures 2 through 4 below show MTF at 10, 20, and 40 lp/mm as a function of image height for output apertures of f/0.666, f/1.0, and f/2.01. At f/0.666 (i.e., with an f/1.2 master lens) the MTF is high near the axis, and only falls off gradually toward the corners. As the aperture is reduced to f/1.0 and then f/2.0 the MTF becomes very high and more even across the field. Figure 5 shows that there is less than 1 stop of corner illumination falloff even at f/0.666. And guess what - there is no vignetting at all after the output aperture reaches f/1.82. Figure 6 shows that rectilinear distortion added by the Speed Booster Q666 is negligible at less than 0.666%.

Like all Metabones Speed Boosters, the Speed Booster Q666 is optimized to fully account for the camera’s filter stack located near the sensor surface. This is especially critical at the record-setting f/0.666 aperture now possible with the Q666. As a result, an enormous range of optics, from vintage film lenses to the latest digital designs, will function flawlessly when adapted to any Pentax Q camera. Planned lens mounts for the Speed Booster Q666 include a Pentax-K version and a Nikon F/G version with the most advanced Nikon G aperture adjustment mechanism in the industry.

Focal reducers have been in use for longer than 35mm still cameras by both large format and in astronomy. In both cases, the reduction in FL and F/ when using a focal reducer have been well understood. So either science and history is wrong, or those crying "fake" are.

Yes, the lens on my first 5x4 camera, an MPP Mk. VIII rangefinder, came with a 135mm Symmar, and which when the rear lens group was unscrewed the front component was a 270mm. So the rear element component was indeed a focal reducer.

Would love an adapter like this to use my 300mm f/4 Pentax 67 lens on an aps-c. Wouldn't that refocus the light field down to aps-c size (~22x15mm) from 60x70mm? So it'd be like f/1.0 at 300mm? Or do I have the concept/math all wrong? BTW, the 300mm, while manual focus, goes for like $100 bucks so it'd be the fast prime deal of a century if it'd work.

No, it'd be 75mm f/1.0. (quite close to Canon FD 85/1.2).And you're asking for 0.25x reducer rather than 0.5x. This, and greater frame coverage (and low volume) would raise cost a lot. Would you like to buy a $2000 focal reducer for $100 lens?

Given the ratio of diagonals is about 0.28, a 0.3x focal reducer is likely the limit to avoid vignetting and distortions and control cost. In this case the lens/focal reducer combo would would become a 100mm F1.3 lens.

First thanks for reading my comment, it's engaging to get a thought out response. My original question is Pentax 67 to Aps-c. The focal reduction quoted above is based on a comparison of the image circle produced for the Pentax 645 film system vs the image sensor size of the 645z. However, I was asking about the Pentax 67. The Pentax 645 film has a focal reducer of .63x from that of the Pentax 6x7 (I used wikipedia for this info so I could be wrong) then there is a further reduction going from 645z's native image circle to full frame and yet another reduction going to aps-c

In the end just a wild fantasy to have a cheap fast lens with the manual focus throws of those old Pentax lenses. :)

The original speed booster was made for APS-C cameras, so you could use FF lenses fully. Nice trick! And - as a consequence you got one stop lower F-number. Brighter image, but smaller. So, the amount of light in the image was really unchanged.

This is the same thing, but now it is 2 stops. It could be nicely used on m43 for FF lenses. Even brighter images, that are even smaller. And still the same amount of light hitting the image. Nice.

But with Q? It crops away a large part of the m43 sensor area, so light is lost. How losing light can turn something into a low light monster, I have no idea.

roland you say" Brighter image, but smaller. So, the amount of light in the image was really unchanged."

the light hitting the apsc is appx doubled ... how? the peripheral light intended for a sensor 864 sq mm [ff] that normally is wasted in the sensor chamber of the 368 sqmm, is recovered by the SB optics

think of the light as marbles in the bottom of a 10 x 10 inch box ,1 layer of marbles..the marbles cover evenly 100 sq in .now transfer those marbles to a 7 x 7 box [49 sqmm appx 1\2 the area ]ftr speedbooster is .71x in ff to apsc version

how many layers? appx 2 layers of marbles of course. that is about how an APS-C sensor can go from having 1x light hitting it to 2x light hitting it peripheral wasted light is recovered\ redirected

b&H has a 10 min vid its a fun watch.for what its worth your incredulity is what everyone experiences prior to the sb experience including me, lol cheers

If you use an FF lens on an APS-C sensor, then half the light is thrown away. If you add a 0.7 Speed Booster, then all that lost light is brought back to the sensor again. So - you now have the same amount of light as you started with at the FF sensor, i.e. plus minus zero in change. Nothing has happened, photon collection wise.

So, the speed booster is not speed booster (on an APS--C) compared to use it on an FF sensor without.

Cropping is actually losing light, because if you want to preserve the IQ you need a lower ISO for the cropped image.

firstly this is about aa phenomenon involving a ff lens on apsc sensor ... the ff lens of ff sensor give 1 x light .... but that has nothing to do with it at all

this is about taking all the light of a ff lenses image circle and shrinking it to about double the intensity and putting it on apsc period ... that adds a real stop of light beyond what that ff lens would normally give ...

this issue is light concentration. which does not happen on a ff lens on a ff sensor

no one ever suggested that the new combo had more photons than a ff lens on a ff sensor .... but it does have double the photons [appx] over using ff lens on apsc sensors using a hollow adapter versus the same combo using a speed booster .... thus 1 x exposure advantage ofer ff on ff beyong the recovery of bokeh character and fov[almost]

Same reply to @cosinaphile. What is your problem? Why do you need to say no all the time? There was nothing wrong with what I wrote. If you want to say something else - fine - but do not say no to things that are true.

The second one is true. If you crop, and want to preserve the print size, you eventually is going to have to decrease the ISO to make an acceptable print. So, you are losing light when cropping. And actually, it is even more evident that you are losing light when you think about all the light that now falls outside of the image. And taking it to the extreme, you crop away the entire image and lose all light.

there is no relative loss of light , a crop of a given image circle across the frame ,light isnt lost exposure wise, it is cropped size wiseacceptable iso? with apsc vs ff theres really no meaningful difference lnIQ in sensors with the same mp count up to about 1600 iso mnear impossible to tell a difference, period

this is a non-issue & has nothing, diminishes nothing from the optical accomplishments of a speedbooster, they recover most of the fov[the apsc\ff ones at .71x] & double the amount of light available for exposure to the apsc sensor over what would be available with said ff lens on a ff sensor. that is an amazing feature that is not erased by reference to "equivilance" which is frankly an overuse, a misuse of the concept when discussing iq between apsc and ff at moderate isos. there exists no tangable real world advantage for sensors of equal mp of ff over apsc at low isos the difference are virtually non existent and no effect erasing sb very real benefits

I did not say that cropping changes exposure, I said it loses light. And I assume you agree on that. The light that now is not in the image any more is lost. And, this is not only a play with words. The entire image gets less light. And therefore gets less information overall.

So - if you scale up the cropped image to be the same size on printing, then you get less information on the same area. I assume you agree on that.

And, if you crop a lot, eventually you will have to little light to make a decent image. I also assume you agree on that.

Sure, going from FF to APS-C might not introduce any big problems. But, actually, no matter how small amount you crop, you get some decrease in information. Even in this case. Actually, you get one stop less light.

In practice, this means that if the light is low and the FF image is hardly usable, then the cropped APS-C image is probably unusable, if you want to scale it up to the same size. So, it matters even between FF and APS-C.

OK - let me rephrase it.* If you could make an optimal speed booster for FF lenses to be used on m43, then it should be 0.5x.* If you could make an optimal speed booster for FF lenses to be used on Q, then it should be 0.2x.

...well because it's more of a toy.... you can put it on macro rings and it will create an image (reducers typically have positive FL)BTW... 0.5x is still somewhat modest. Maybe if they threw DO they could get even larger reduction? ah, but it'd increase cost...

It pretty weird EF to EF-M reducer doesn't exist. AFAIK such adapter doesn't need protocol translator, only wires connecting pins.I've asked Brian Caldwell (on this forum) about MF reducers and he said there is not enough market demand to justify.

I didn't ask him about the Q. Well, also I can speculate that they were doing a version for blackmagic camera (2.7 crop sensor), then decided it has too bad IQ on the edges and decided to slap Q-mount on it.

I think he means no new model since August 2014, and nothing apparently on the horizon. So, yes, as a system it is dead. This is not to say the cameras presently in use work aren't technically dead in this respect.

Mr Fawkes, thou are in mistake. It does affect photography. That is why some photographers seek to use larger sensors, even though the cameras gets larger and more expensive. If it only was a matter of focal length, then all would like to use the smallest sensor you can make. A bigger sensor means collecting more light and decreasing diffraction. Even an F8 lens for a large format camera is huge. that is because the aperture needs to be large. And then it lets in lots of light. And lots of light is a good thing.

So, even if you do not think so and maybe do not understand how it works, equivalence is very real for photographers.

Roland, I fully understand the equivalence arguments. Other than equivalent focal length, which IS important to know because digital cameras have been equipped with so many different focal lengths depending upon their sensor size, we need a reference for FoV, but all the hype and argument for DoF equivalence will be lost on those not shooting with cameras of different sized sensors. With nearly 5 decades of film shooting behind me and with cameras ranging from 16mm sub-min to 5x4, I have NEVER needed to know the equivalence of any lens. despite the different focal lengths I will have used on these cameras. I have worked within the constraints of each format and have never once considered if I have a certain DoF on 35mm what aperture should I use if I wished to shoot on 5x4, for example. Film photographers assumed this as a matter of course. And until DPR first introduced this concept a few years ago I hadn't previously seen any reference to it with reference to film shooting.

there are real reasons why an equivalence matter could be of use to a shooter, fov stated above, which, with so many formats of sensors ,is useful to grasp. & when considering DOF of fast lenses .

obviously, its useful to know that the iPhone sensor is about 17.5 sq mmand a 24x36 sensor is 864 sqmm. anyone shooting who follows what iq is provided and how it varies across sensors and isos understands what to expect on the 2 formats

sometimes you need to go to extreme isos to see any real-world benefit from sensor types. consider a 50mp canon image on an 864sqmm sensor vs a 50 mp pentax image on a 1441 sqmm sensor. are there differences? Sure.... at low isos? what is the point beyond a discussion of bokeh or fov???i dont see one until extreme isos are considered ,

creepy name, cool development. metabones offers some of the most exciting unique and forward thinking optics anywhere.everyone & anyone makes a lens it seems these days but metabones is unique in offering the opposite of a teleconverter, designed by cauldwell scientific worldclass optical designers.some of their adapters cost 800+ dollars, yes there are other makers of this adapter concept loosely copying metabones, but they are,at best, good to poor,& lack the coating & superb optical corrections baked into cauldwell designs.

both are extraordinary optical devices that bring a smile to my face with each new lens pairing.they are not perfect.. & certainly some lenses give mindblowing result and some are just good..but using a 35-70 f2,8 nikon afd zoom at f 2 is a rare joy... my Voigtlander Nikon 58mm1.4 [ 62mm f1 on SB ]is too cool for school..

In volume terms the GM1 is the smallest all round, with the NX Mini running it a very close second. But given its height and width, the NX Mini will certainly appear to be a much larger camera, as its shallow depth won't be apparent until it is held.

Can you read? The text says "The booster has a magnification of 0.5x and produces a 2.8x crop factor when used with the Q and Q10, and a 2.3x factor with the Q7 and Q-S1."BTW Q7 Q-S1 are 4.7x already without a reducer.

Hallelujah!!! The laws of physics have been changed. Thanks to Metabones. An f/1.2 becomes an f/0.7 after inserting a chunk of glass, with multiple elements, between it and the camera.Give them the Nobel Prize for physics!!!

Disheartening but not surprising that such a fundamental concept as f-ratio is not understood by many here.

f-ratio = focal length / aperture

if you change the focal length and keep the aperture constant then the f-ratio must change.

However, the article buy into a myth that is basically untrue. Faster f-ratio does not defacto result in "lower light" capabilities unless the faster f-ratio is produced via larger aperture. The light "signal" (photons) is determined by aperture and is entirely unaffected by focal length. Signals can be spread out or concentrated at the focal plane by varying the focal length but if the aperture is constant then the information is unchanged (angular flux is unaffected).

But most detectors are noisy (esp read noise). So shorter FL (constant aperture) results in less image noise because there are fewer pixels per angular area. BTW this dynamic is absent from noiseless detector (EMCCD) but no one here uses such cams (except for me <g>).

42mm is constant no matter what FL becomes due to reducer or extender. Aperture alone determines angular signal flux. So there is no magical "low light" enhancement via FL reduction, except that less camera readnoise is injected into the image (because the image uses fewer pixels per angular area). So for most detectors there is actually some low light enhancement. However most "enhancement" is illusory, simply due to down-sizing the display image (could accomplish nearly the same "low light" by reducing the display image from a non-reduced lens).

It's clear that the Metabones people are out in full force here today. Even the most naive person can detect their presence throughout all the comments, where any positive comment is getting all these likes.

Some commenters are, sadly, being disrespectful or sarcastic, although they seem to have missed the point.

Back to the issue at hand.There is no argument about the physics, geometry, or math here.The marketing wizards want to convince me that this adapter will make the system a SUPER low light system.This is highly exaggerated. Actually it is false.

The amount of light entering the system is determined by the lens aperture, in this case f/1.2, and that's where my argument is.

You cannot change that amount with the adapter, except, actually, for reducing it, assuming a constant light source, of course.

vscd said ...@cosinaphile"Can you write a comment without hyping fuji in any way? Guess not".

good guessing!the short answer is no ... most everytime i have a chance to mention fujiit is in a positive light ..... some praise is deserved .... have you tried fuji or do you just rag it?.... its without equal the most exciting innovative camera company in the world today ... they give us free features in the updatesand lovely gift baskets at the holidays

try it you'll like it .... they are the fricking lays potato chips of the camera world !

@cosinaphileIf you would look into my list of gear you will note that I even *own* a few Fujis like the 680GX and the X100S. On jobs I borrow the GFX50S. I'm also able to use it but I don't have to pray them because they are cams. Tools. Get over it. It's so annoying to others...

vscd.... hers what i said ..... it happens to be accurate ...further i praised all apsc in the next sentence : "noise up to iso 3200 \ 6400 is virtually identical between any ff sensor and decent apsc."

"when you go to a superb sensor like is in fuji cameras there is a negligible penalty for added noise

"... its almost a non issue

even sensors of absurdly tiny dimensions like in cellphones are getting love these days at low isos [ too much love i think]"

if you think that constitutes" prayer like" devotion then we have very different concepts of the world

cheers

or was it the mention of the fuji gift baskets at the holidays in an earlier post?....lol

@Enginel. Clearly, many don't understand exactly what happens when a focal reducer is used. I do wonder, also, how many detractors have ever used one?

I have two for my Sony 5N so I can use my Leica R and Minolta MD lenses. I can emphatically state that they do increase the effective aperture by the one stop claimed. And it is easy to demonstrate this as I was curious myself about the claims made. Attaching my f1.4/50 MD via a simple dumb adapter I took a photo in aperture priority mode followed by the same shot except now with the lens on a focal reducer but still at f1.4. And guess what? In my test the normal exposure was at 1/2000 sec, but with the reducer the exposure was 1/4000 sec. The effective exposure was thus f1. Let the naysayers argue the point ad finitum, but here's the proof.

It is important to always bear this in mind when setting manual exposure as each stop on the lens will behave as though it were a stop faster.

I believe that they must be, based on your spirited attempts to enlighten them. I'm just waiting for comments to say my practical test proving the efficacy of focal reducers is all wrong and I must be deluding myself. :D)

The Metabone information is perfectly fine. You can lower the F-stop number with an adapter like this. Nema Problema, except that there are some theoretical limitations as the light rays has to stay inside the optics. This is the opposite of the lost F-stop you get when using a tele converter.

The caveat is that, while the image gets brighter, it also get smaller. So - the total amount of light do not increase, compared using the FF lens, without adapter, on an FF camera.

you are not creating non existant photons , they are present and wasted at the periphery of the image, remember this essential point roland: the ff image circle is quite a bit bigger than the apsc sensor .. that image circle was intended to cover a sensor or film that was 23x36 ,that is a 864 sqmm area big!... but in legacy lens use the apsc sized sensor can only use the central portion of that giant 864 sqmm image circle where do all the extra photons the of the giant image circle go ? they are spilled at the edges and hit the sensor chamber edges

WHAT A SB DOES IS TAKE THOSE REAL WASTED PHOTONS AND OPTICALLY REDIECTS THEM SO THEY GET TO THE APS C SENSOR ! SO NOW THE ENTIRE 864SQMM GOODNESS EXISTS ON A 368 SQMM SENSOR

THOSE ARE EXTRA PHOTONS THAN THE ONES AN APSC SENSOR WILL USE WITHA HOLLOW ADAPTER

@sh10453 You are confusing F number and aperture diameter. aperture diameter is fixed and isn't changed by the use of teleconvertor or focal reducer. The F number is the ratio of the aperture diameter and focal length. Change the focal length, you have changed the F number. On a teleeconvertor your F number become larger, on a Speedbooster, your Fnumber becomes smaller. I have a 0.71x Speedbooster, I've performed measurements. It works as predicted by the math.

"You cannot invent non existing photons" which leads me to believeyou dont embrace the concept of the speedbooster as a meritorious device

i do ... also you keep talking about full frame cameras in these matters they are not in the equation speedboosters compare themselves to intended image circles for lenses there bokeh characters and intended fov ....they specifically are improving legacy lens use vs hollow adapters ... you seem to think that equivalence will erase any benefit because of some hypothetical standard of full frame

but the benefits are real especially at low isos where a lens doubles in speed for a user and wide lenses especially recover their intended goodness

" The original speed booster was made for APS-C cameras, so you could use FF lenses fully. Nice trick! And - as a consequence you got one stop lower F-number. Brighter image, but smaller. So, the amount of light in the image was really unchanged."

i believe you to be wrong there

with ff lenses on apsc sensors, the amount is not unchanged it is approximately doubled

ff lenses on ff sensors get dimmer light to their sensors compared to what happens with a speedbooster on apsc

speedbooser- like focal reducers are used sometimes in astrophotography for its challenging task of creating exposure with very dim light

Yes, we are both right. Just different view points. Thanks for pointing it out. Maybe I should have gone elsewhere a long time ago, but I am quite annoyed with someone reading what I write, says I am wrong and then talks about other things. In particular since I am right. I wonder if cosinaphile can read it and see it now and admit it.

I'm good with that . both right ... different points actually being made. if one analyzes the discussion carefully .. [ i was starting to think i was wrong anyway, lol] cheers....

ps a speedbooster for nikon to fuji x is actually shorter than the hollow adapter one would have used otherwise ... with a fast lens like the compact nikkor 50 mm 1.4 \ with .71x speedbooster your getting the nice separation of the ff lens for portraits and that extra stop of exposure .. and you dont need an f1 beast to get the speedi realize that this may matter little to some ... except I'm a bit of a legacy lens junkie ...[ i cant tell you how many shots i miss] but when ive got need for the sb benefits and a little more tiem to hand focus ... im in nirvana .... ff bokeh character and dof [ appx] and f1 aperture speed

The trick here is to decide, which is most important, the light level or the amount of light. The speed booster increases the light level but do not add any extra light, of course.

The light level is most important if you preserve the ISO number. Therefore, the naive answer is that the speed booster actually is a real "speed booster". And, if you put the same lens on the same camera, with or without the speed booster, that is true. But, of course, then the FOV will change.

But, if the comparison is using the bare lens on an FF camera and the speed booster adapted one on APS-C (for a 0.7 SB) or m43 (for a 0.5 SB) then things are changing. Because, you can use the FF camera at a higher ISO and get the same quality. Then, the amount of light is more important.

well .. at this point it seems to become almost a matter of semantics if we begin with the premise that we respect the integrity of both the apsc sensor and the 24x 36 sensor as being separate but mostly equal entities [ at low isos and equal mp ]and to abandon the ridiculous notion of apsc being a "crop" of a "ff sensor" a different pov would be that" FF "sensors are overgrown apsc sensors because apsc sensors came first historicallyi maintain that for most matters of IQ there exists very little meaningful difference in the 2 sensors.you see the same claims being made for most practical purposes between 50mp canon sensors of 864 sqmm to the 1441 sqmm sensors of the new hassy and fuji "MF" cameras i completely disagree with your notion that benefits are erased by some equivilence argument.. nor will full frame cameras ever see a similar magical device like a speedbooster doubling of speed for exposure ... for many reasons not the least of lack of room in the slr world

also roland there is nothing to decide .. if you own a apsc sensor mirrorless you have this very cool option of recovering fov and gaining a speed stop of lenses that were previously unable to give the benefuiits of the image circle in legacy lens use by mirrorless... apsc dslr can never use a speedbooster neither can a 24x 36 sensor dslr use it , because physics

there is absolutely no reason to compare apsc sb with 35mm lenses on a nirrorless camera with 35 mm lenses on a "ff" camera .... they are different animals with different capabilities

no one disputes the advantage of a larger sensor .in a theoretical sense, or a stop advantage in noise.. but for practical real-world use, when does that noise become an issue? if a sb allows a 1 stop exposure advantage on apsc have we not erased the theoretical advantage of ff?SB are unique to the mirrorless world [ mostly ] they are outside the purview of ff and comparisons seen to be a bit disingenuous at best

"The trick here is to decide, which is most important, the light level or the amount of light. The speed booster increases the light level but do not add any extra light, of course"

no to that statement Roland ...speed boosters DOUBLE THE LIGHT hitting the sensor ... the proviso is it does it on a sensor with a one stop disadvantage of noise [ theoretically] but noise isn't an issue to ff or apsc below iso 1600 certainly it's near meaningless at iso 200 .... it is nowhere near enough to erase the benefits of its use

speed booster are able to double the light hitting the sensor over the use of the same lens on either ff sensors or on apsc mirrorless with hollow adapters.

p,s, the best they can do for m43 sensors and et a standard of iq is .64x[so a 50 mm lens is 50 x .64 = 32..... 32 x 2 [ m43 2x factor ]

is about 64mm fov equiv with a claimed 1 1\3 stop increase of light to the sensor over using a hollow adapter

As I said, your view is just fine. For your APS-C camera you get a wider FOV and a lower F-stop. So, you can use a shorter exposure time at the same ISO. And ... also use the lens fully. A win win situation. The speed boosters are very nice for this situation. It really works.

My additional information then is that it is really not a booster compared to using the same lens naked on an FF camera. Because, the speed booster do not add any light, it just concentrates it. This is also true. And you say no. Claiming it to be just semantics of words. But, it isn't. It is also a physical reality.

@ Roland, I'm not sure if you are missing the raison d'etre of a speedbooster/focal reducer. It is not to compare a lens designed for 35mm film cameras on a digital FF sensor, but to enable the same lens to give its natural FoV when used on the smaller M4/3 and APS-C sensors. It isn't a viable argument, IMO, to deny the advantages of using a reducer on a smaller sensor to the noise implications of actually using this smaller sensor. The noise argument is tenuous to say the least as all sensors are not equal in this area.

The latest APS-C sensors, in particular the Fuji X-Trans, are very good up to a point which is relevant to the majority of users. A native FF sensor should be better in this area, but only at the higher ISO settings. For example, the extra stop that the speedbooster provides means an APS-S need only be exposed at 3200 ISO, say, when ISO 6400 will be needed on a FF sensor for the same effective exposure. How relevant, if at all, will the noise difference be?

it really interesting that i believe in what i say yet see a point in your reasoning .

i think thought the very act of optical concentration adds light

The apsc sensor and ff sensor are different sizes and have different areas and therefore different needs . While the absolute amount of light might be about equal hitting apsc plus SB vs full frame sensor ... i dont accept that a 1 stop theoretical advantage in the larger sensor negates in any way the benefits of exposure. with speed boosters a physically real increase of appx double the light to a given sensor is a tangibly real phenomenon .

another way to characterize this is to say ff sensors are twice as dim as apsc with SB....

one thing that has not been discussed is the lessening of optical defects and reduction of aberrations when an image circle is shrunk to a smaller sensor.

an interesting aside to this whole discussion is the earliest use of focal reducers to" repair" the orig fov of 35mm lenses on smaller sensors

back in the day the first digital slrs from nikon, with a technology share from none other than fuji, was the Nikon e system dslrs they were the first to use the magical but meaningless 1mp sensors , but because the technology was young. the sensor used was a 2\3 sensor of about 58 sq mm.This is about 16 times smaller than a 24 x 36 sensor yet nikon\fuji were able to get back the the orig fov of nikkor lenses with a 4x focal reducer .. The result is approximately 4 stops (2 to the 4th power=16) more light at the small sensor compared to a FF sensor. it had a minimum ISO 800 and max 3200 amazing for the day

crazy historical stuff, $25000 entry feein a way this Q mount speedbooster is doing something akin to these first dslr products.but with higher mp counts.iq is more demanding, but tricks unavailable to apsc & m43 are exploited

@cosinaphile - you wrote: "i think thought the very act of optical concentration adds light". Nope - where should that light come from? There is no photon multiplicator in the speed booster. It is the same (or actually a bit less) light at a smaller area.

@guyfawkes - I do clearly understand the role for speed boosters. I am just trying to convince the other guy that light energy cannot just be taken out of thin air. Conservation of energy forbids that.

if you could put a light meter in front of ff sensor with 50mm 1.4 = x light a second reading, with a meter, with the same lens and a speedbooster in front of an apsc sensor, on apsc would give a reading of 2x [appx]

you keep coming back to the point, which i agree with, that the appx light from ff lens on a ff sensor is same as the the identical lens coupled with a speedbooster on an apsc sensor,but on a ff the light is more spread &dimmer, a point thats not been made is at the "largest" apertures [a 1.4 lens at 1.4] SB does exceed ff lenses on ff sensors. for example a 35-70 mm 2.8 nikkor that behaves as a 35-70mm f2, that translates to stopping action beyond it with ff, that stop is meaningful

consider a lenses price for a 2.8 lens vs a I stop slower lens.. using such a lens at f2 that speedbooster allow[with fov recovery] ,has absolutely nothing to do with a ff sensor, its advantage beyond hypotheticals about comparisons vs full frame

a finite amount of light of a given image circle of a full frame lens is either used normally on ff [ and spread dimly] or at twice the intensity on apsc

the concentration of an image circle doubles the intensity of light on apsc the same image circle on ff is dimmer by one stop

the light energy is about the same .....so what ? how on earth does that negate the speedbooster advantages ... and please dont tell me noise

for normal purposes there are advantages over the same lens on ff

look over my posts .... ive repeatedly acnowleged that the light energy to ff sensor or apsc sensors with speedbooster are appx the same ...i must have said that 3 or 4 times ... that fact has nothing to do with a speedbooster use on a camera

The only difference is that you claim that it is uninteresting to compare with usage of the lens in an FF camera. My claim is that it is interesting, because otherwise you might get unrealistic expectations.

An FF lens is best used on an FF sensor. There is no advantage of using it on an APS-C camera and a speed booster instead. The lowering of the F-stop might hint at that. But, it is false.

But - enough of this already. I assume the rest of the world is utterly tired of our discussion :) It is a good thing that there are no 150 limits in the news comments. Otherwise our lengthy tirad would have blocked more important discussions.

@vscdNope. You apparently have never drawn anything in optical CAD. BTW with existing Metabones reducers you can't get even f/0.33 of MFT. Also f/0.33 would kinda require rear element of your reducer to be glued to sensor (where your 5D has focal plane shutter).

The Metabones 0.71x speedbooster works, and with an FD50mm 1.4 lens I can create a 35mm F1.0 lens. Yes, the exposure and DOF are as expected. I have no doubt that a 0.5x speedbooster could be made for some cameras and would provide DOF and exposure as predicted. The questions would be around sharpness and vignetting. My experience with Metabones so far is that their products are high quality, function as predicted and the optics are good.

@mosc That's why the in-series speedbooster doesn't exist. You start with a lens designed for a larger format sensor, typically full frame. The speedbooster shrinks the image circle to approximately the size of a smaller format sensor. On the smaller format sensor you don't see much vignetting because the image circle is still larger than the sensor.

"Attach an f/1.2 lens and stop down a little to see how Stanley Kubrick made do with f/0.7 for filming those famous candle-lit scenes in “Barry Lyndon”. Or open up all the way to f/0.666 and probe the darkness in a way that no photographer has ever been able to do until now."

Pure marketing hype. Total light gathered is still severely limited by the tiny sensor. Put your f1.2 lens on a D5 [or indeed just about any modern 35mm sensor] and you'll be able to get far more usable imagery in very low light situations.

While the Metabones speedboosters are interesting and useful for APSc and MFT formats, why on earth anyone would want to spend so much on one to team it with a cheap, limited and obsolete camera is way beyond me. Perhaps why they have to make such outrageous claims in their marketing.

Maybe some people will like to use their Nikon lenses on another camera they own.

Other people, well, maybe they like to be convinced that you can bend the Laws of Physics, and create light where there is only so much.

From a FF f/1.2 lens, you will at best get the performance of a FF f/1.2 lens, it's that simple.Moreover any manipulation, in the form of additional lenses in the optical path, will reduce total ligth transmitted and degrade quality.

@ChatbotWhere I come from a math is what people with harsh accents call those clothes munching insects that like head-butting lightbulbs. And certainly I know what an F stop is - it's the one between the E stop and the G stop. What have buses and the adult form of lepidoptera got to do with any of this?

do some high school senoir level research on the science of focal reducers they actually improve image quality not degrade it ... fuurther they actually incerease light by a stop or more ... period

does anyone look or read about scientific developments in optics

in america i realize education is crap and most people have the scientic understanding of a 3 year old especially in evolutionary biology and physics .... being ignorant or not is always a personal choice

thought experiment .... you shine a flashlight on to a darkened wall, the light cone hits the wall ..., the diameter of the circle of light is 8 inches ... now an imaginary light meter take a reading and findsthe light to be at intensity x

now reduce the circle of light 4 inches across ... question what is the intensity of light now ...? is it still x ?

Wow... calling me names, taking a patronizing attitude and making all kinds of grammar blunders just didn't cut it for you...You _had_ to forget viewing size... because _obviously_ you see images on the very same sensor you use to record them!

So... let's see... I take the same quantity of light, and project it a) on a big sensor and b) through _additional glass_ on a smaller sensor, thus concentrating light _just to have to spread it out again in order to fill the same monitor/printing medium_

In all fairness... the image should look similar to the same picture taken by the FF camera with the lens and reduced to the MP size of the Q camera sensor output I guess. The speed booster may make the lens a 0.66666666666666 but the equivalence factor is still there.

You can concentrate light in a tighter spot... that won´t make for more total light. Maybe more intensity, but then you hit a smaller sensor... less pixels there to gather light so... You can´t make out more light that the one output by le last element of the lens, at the end of the day... just redirect it, bend it... etc. All operations that will some way or another degrade the quality of said light.

I guess a 35mm f1.8 is pretty cheap and you could find one in many amateurs' bag. If this works you get a cheap f0.9 lens or something. Of course I imagine any recent FF has a 3 stops advantage over the Pentax Q cameras...

But it is expensive for a tool that will be used a few times to have fun...

when you take a full frame image circle and optically reduce its diameter,the intensity of the light hitting the APS-C sensor doubles

that's physics.its how a flashlight can illuminate a whole room dimly or the can also shine very brightly on a smaller part of the room

why is basic science so hard to understand?lens beginner,my comment on your name was unkind & i regret its mention in the heat of a comment but truely guys try & wrap you heads around this. SB at least the less exotic ones for fuji x do 2 things well they recover a fov very close to what it was on full frame including a full frame like bokeh and secondly they offer an extra stop of speed

this isn't hype. nor can it be dismissed by alluding to some vague imaginings about equivalenceThe differences between APS-C & FF are extremely minimal to nonexistant at moderate iso for anyone not getting this look at the d500 vs the d750or fuji vs any 24mp ff to see they have extraordinarily close image quality

You're right, the difference between FF and APS-C is negligible: given the same sensor tech & generation, it's about one stop. The same stop you gain with a speed booster (minus the additional glass).

The total light gathered by a given lens & projected on a given image circle _cannot be altered_, it can be concentrated, but you'll still need to expand it again when going to viewing size, negating the advantage.

_Maybe_ your APS-C Fuji sensors are so much better than Nikon's FF ones, that you make up for the losses due to the adapter and then some (I doubt it), but here we are talking about a system whose latest camera was launched in 2014! I use Pentax gear, but I'm not blind...

You _cannot_ go past the light capabilities of a lens in its intended format. This adapter is convenient, sure, but it itsn't magical.

You're saving me some lengthy arguments here. Cosinaphile is confusing concentrating the same amount of light into a tighter imaging circle to actually improving the quality of the lens. He somehow thinks this is sensible physics. Add a speed booster on to any lens and were you to get 100% efficiency you could only achieve exactly the same amount of light transmission - no greater. But usually it's not as much as that - and certainly not in this case. APSc is actually around one and a third stop behind 35mm and MFT [which I mostly use] 2 stops.

You always pay for these things one way or another - I've one of those f0.95 Noktons for my kit and it's quite a heavy thing [particularly for a prime]. It still only gets me the same amount of light as around an f1.8 projected on to a 35mm sensor [and the same DoF characteristic to boot].

its you guys that are confused , deeply so.this equivalence argument is simply nonsense. you have clearly no understanding of what a speedbooster is or what it can accomplish

when you optically reduce an image circle & put its light & bokeh character on a smaller sensor with a high quality 3 or 4 element , designed in America optical device, built better than most lenses, the benefits are real, tangible, scientifically provable, & not erased by this endless equivalence nonsense

there is a wealth of science on this if you ever want to educate yourselves.

or you can keep sniping with comments that betray a deep misunderstanding and scientific ignorance on this subject. your call

"There is a widespread belief that adding optical elements to an existing lens always reduces optical performance. This misconception is probably due to the fact that teleconverters do indeed reduce optical performance simply because they magnify the aberrations of the objective lens.

Fortunately, the opposite situation occurs with focal reducers. Here, the image formed by the objective lens is compressed by the reducer, so the aberrations are actually reduced. Of course, the focal reducer itself is not completely aberration-free, but in a well-executed design these aberrations can be kept small enough that the reducer can actually make a significant improvement in MTF compared to the objective lens used alone."

and do read the whole paper .... for your own sake ....it's genuinely worth the time

there is nothing blissful about your opinions thus far ....as stated

and yes fujis sensor tech and processing are excellent they compare favorably to nikon or anyone's ff dpr test charts can show you a LOT ..... compare d750 to fuji xt2 released on.... wait for it .....September 8 2016

you can not tell the difference between the 2 formats ... thats the reality here

Yeah, abberations are reduced in just the same way as if you take any large image and shrink it down by any means [whether it be projection, downsampling or any other common means] you reduce perceptual detail and therefore also reduce any aberrant detail present. But the point is, you can't take an amount of light, push it through a lens and somehow magically end up with more light than you started with. You can concentrate it, you can diffuse it, but it's the same light and the only possibility is that you lose some of it. In the case of this speedbooster/sensor combination, it's quite a bit of it [ie you're capturing less light overall fully open on the Pentax sensor than you would be on a Nikon 35mm sensor].

You really shouldn't need a PhD in the field to understand that - it's almost breathtakingly simple.

Chris, how can a magnifying glass use the sun to burn a hole in paper ?

the full frames image circle [864 sq mm] when used on APS-C is partly wasted because a sensor is cutting out a smaller rectangle[ the APS-C sensor] [368 sqmm ] the rest of the light is spilled and unused in the perimeter of the sensor chamber.

what speedboosters do is recover that light and make it hit the sensor Its added to the light that is already used to make the image on the APS-C sensor

that means that approximately twice the light is hitting the apsc sensor when a speedbooster is placed between a full frme lens & an APS-C sensor. since the entire image circle is again used ,its very close to the orig fov of the lens

this is basic proveable science ,if your intuition & gut are telling you otherwise .. you are being misled and need to read about the science behind these optical phenomena. the pdf above is where I learned it myself ..prior to that, i too was highly skeptical toocheers

Oh my... I wasn't comparing a FF lens on APS-C to a FF lens on APS-C with a speedbooster; I said that a FF lens on APS-C with a speedbooster will _at best_ have the same performance of the same lens ON FF.

What's so transcendent about it, and which part of it you don't get?

Regarding the magnifying glass, it's the wrong analogy, unless you look at your pictures the size of the burn on an ant... are you paid by Metabones, in order to pretend not to understand what others have wrote so clearly?

You burn the paper by concentrating the light. You don't actually think you're making MORE light with a magnifying glass do you?

We keep repeating the same thing ad nauseum. If your speedbooster was optimal and 100% efficient [which not only is it not, it's quite a way off in this particular instance]. It could only give you PRECISELY THE SAME amount of light. And it doesn't

len beginner ... it will not have the same performance at best... it gains a full stopof exposure when used on apsc

chris-..that is what speed boosters do concentrate light . you've got it the light in the concentrated areas is boosted quite a bit... in the case of the mag glass BIG AREA OF LIGHT.. say the diameter of a 4 inch mag glass is reducedto the area 1\4 inch... that tiny circle of light can burn its so intense

that exactly what a speedbooster does takes wasted peripheral light normally wasted at the perimeter of an image circle and puts more of it on to the apsc sensor this is physics

think of a box 10 inch square, 100 sq in right? ok take small round beads and spread exactly one layer onto the 10x10 area ..ok.. now transfer those beads to a box 7 x 7[ speedbooster is .71x] the 7x7 box in 49 sq in , almost 50...correct?

here's one of the largest and most respected camera stores in the world

B&H photo... 34 and 9th av nyc its an amazing store staffed by real shooters with love of cameras optics videos drones and all manner of devices, related... they offer workshops as does the excellent adorama[ nearby on 17tth off 6th av]b&h made this 10 minute video explaining the speedbooster

Your beads analogy fails in two respects. Firstly you aren't of course magically increasing the number of beads, you're putting the SAME number of beads in a smaller box.

The other thing is that in the case of the combination in question, because the magnification factor does not exactly match the size it's going down to, you're losing photons [just not as many as if you didn't concentrate the light]. That's without any inefficiencies which may arise from a longer transmission path.

I can't explain it any more simply than that, so if you still don't understand I cannot magically generate any more light to cast on the problem.

No one's denying it will give an f stop [it's actually a bit more than one stop] greater than the one on the lens you're mounting. The claim that you can "probe the darkness in a way that no photographer has ever been able to do until now" is, because it's utter tripe.

Unless the sensor in the Q is far more efficient per cm than the larger sensor the lens projects on to, it can't capture MORE light. It is the overall amount of light captured which will determine its low-light capability.

An f2 lens on a smartphone camera @ISO 100 performs far, far worse in terms of noise control than a lens set at f11 on a 35mm sensor in spite of a 5 stop difference. Why is that? Because the larger sensor is still capturing far more light than the piddling smartphone sensor.

Presuming the imaging circle is designed efficiently for 35mm sensor [and why wouldn't it be?] concentrating the same amount of light onto a smaller sensor would only give you exactly the same amount of light overall if it was 100% efficient. Which it isn't. AND scaled the imaging circle exactly to the size of the smaller sensor. Which it doesn't.

@chris. yes, i agree. the silly hype in the article &* the devil name is pure hyperbole. probing the darkness.bla bla, its a bit much.but beyond the silly copy above, which is a bit much, The speedboosters made since 2014 [or earlier for the telescope world by others]is an amazing deal changing technology for apsc & m43 when using adapted lenses, bringing tremendous benefit over using ff lenses adapted with hollow adapters. ive owned 2 SB for almost 3 yrs & they amaze me each time i pick it up...especially when using long lenses on the pen f or finally using a nikkor 20mm at equiv 25mm fov where previously it was 40mm w a hollow adapter on m43with 1 1\3 more stops of light ans 5 stops of stabilization custom matched to specific focal lengths as oly does in its menu options. worlds of possibility are opened that are near impossible any other way

my canon fd 200 2.8 becomes a [200 x .64] become a 5 stop stabilised256mm equiv f1.7.. thats something to try if you have not

I have contemplated buying a speed booster for my MFT gear [I still have a 5DII and a few L lenses]. But a few things put me off: • They're very expensive. • Loss of autofocus is obvious [although not critical for me personally]• Additional reach is diminished by the magnification• The bulk - which is the principal reason for buying a smaller format in the first place• Other ways of achieving the same result - for instance I have some manual ultra primes for low light/ shallow DoF work and I've also got other adapters including for FT - which gives very long reach and a pretty fast aperture [the Zuiko 50-200 f2.8-3.5 - which cost me less than a speedbooster].

So I'm absolutely not saying they're completely useless - just that the extent of the usefulness does not make them an attractive proposition for me at present.

It's about the focal reducer not about the adaptation, why the Metabones is interresting.Have one for m43 and at times it's very useful. Maybe for hobby it isn't a feasible buy but for the professional it is, many in the field use Canon and Nikon lenses and still have a number of them eventhough they use m43.But I guess in these fora most can't comprehend why you would want a 1" or m43 camera iso an APS-C or 35mm ;-)

I have EM1 II and Speed Booster for Nikon lenses. They work very well because m43 sensor is good enough from the start. I especially love to use Tokina 300mm f4 and AID 135mm f2.8 with speed booster.Pentax Q uses compact camera sensor and even at base ISO the picture quality is not worth $400+.

I find it hard to believe professionals even use the Q for their work. A hobbyist dropping $400 on this doesn't make sense. Focal reduction doesnt make up for a tiny sensor which at base ISO doesn't have good DR vs a full frame or APSC camera. also, you put this adapter and a big lens on it and the camera's small size is negated. Unless a new Q comes out, cut your losses on it and move on.

I always liked the Q and thought of it as a compact with an interchangeable lens system. It’s small size made it easy to carry and fun to use. I did not mind the IQ etc, it was in line with what you might expect. I was sorry to see it disappear from retail stores but It’s good to know that there is still third party commercial interest in the Q.

- The low light capability of a Q camera with most Nikon lenses would be far inferior to even a low-end DSLR with cheap and light prime lenses like 50/1.8 or 35/1.8- For those not owning a Q camera, buying one (if you can find one) and then this adapter would be an expensive affair. If one wants FF so badly, a Sony A7 won't be that much more expensive that such a kit, and is available for purchase new.- A Q camera with a FF Nikon lens is a front heavy and unwieldy combination. The complete opposite of a Q camera with a native lens.- The Q system is practically discontinued, and the already-tiny userbase isn't likely to grow.

So why would Metabones develop this? Could it be they don't actually intend to bring it to the market and just want the headlines? I can't think of any other reason.

Saw this a month ago when the press release actually happened and thought it wouldn't be out of place as an April fools joke. Still there must be a market. I'd rather have something for the Nikon 1 personally.

Summary of why this product should be developed: there are enough idiots who think the f-stop is more important than the exit pupil diameter when it comes to low light ability for Metabones to recoup their costs.

WTH Metabones. 0.5x for a dead system, but you can't figure one out for micro four thirds? It's the system that makes the most sense for a .5x converter. With the 2x crop factor, ff lenses could be used at their native field of view. Yes please!

I'm only guessing here, but could it be they'd have problems with the corners if adapting FF lenses to m43 with a 0.5x booster? In this application only a tiny fraction of the center of the lens' image circle is used.

A speed booster for a camera thats 4 yrs old and a tiny 1/1.7" sensor. Whats the point again?

The Q was a great tiny camera, but attach a speed booster and a giant lens, you lose the size advantage. You are better off putting your money on a newer camera with a larger sensor ...like the Sony a5100 or a6x00 series and a cheaper adapter.

Focal reducers definitely have their place in adapting down to near sensor sizes, but I can't see this model selling. I thought the Q had passed into history. No new bodies, no new lenses. And whatever the equivalence of Nikon FF lenses on the tiny sensor, the whole galumphing front heavy beastie would defeat the purpose of the Q anyway. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

No it won't be like having a 200mm F3.3 camera since people buying this have no 35mm camera. But like with m43 this will make higher shutterspeeds possible in lower light and the bonus is that you get a tad more dof control.People who buy and have bought m43, 1,"and Q know the camera isn't 35mm and don't aspire one. Maybe it's time for those numbskulls, that think we do, to get the message.

It seems like this topic is irritating you more than it really should, Pretty much the majority use 35mm as a benchmark... most don't know what an 8.5mm F1.9 lens would be for a small sensor camera however tell them its similar to a 50mm in 35mm terms and it means something. Now whether you're APS-C, M43rds, 1" or smaller you can take FF equivalents and convert them to your desired system... That 200mm F3.3 for example is like having a 100mm F1.7 on m43rds, so all I'm asking is does such a lens interest you? Is it worthwhile to you to combine the 85mm F1.4, adapter and a Q7 to get access to that focal length and aperture? So its not about FF but its about not duplicating if the option already exists in your preferred format size. Also note that it doesn't matter what format size you prefer you cannot make an adapted lens any more capable in DOF control or focal length than what it is capable of on its native format.

well, if what they say is true, you get a 200mm f0.7. Of course not from a DoF point of view, but from an exposure point of view it could be useful. Of course, if you own the FF camera, it's of little use. Maybe if you have a D5x00 with a few lenses you could give it a try and enjoy the results. Imagine a Tamron 18-400mm with 2.3x crop factor and a more usable f3.5 or something at 920mm (35mm equivalent).

F0.7 on a Q7 sensor at ISO100 is like F3.3 on a FF sensor at ISO2200... This is where the shutter speed, dynamic range, DOF, noise and exposure would match if the sensor technology and resolution were identical; allow some room for small differences. There is no magic bullet, for a certain result you need a certain size lens (excluding the wide angle benefits of short flange distance mounts)... 135mm F2.0 lenses are a certain size and to get the same result on medium format, APS-C, M4/3rds, 1" or smaller sensors the lens has to be the same size and the sensor must utilize the full image circle.

Manual focus alone will make using many modern lenses tough on the Q-series camera...

This must be a new construction from Metabones. It is more than an adaptation of their existing technology to yet another mount. It is the first product for a camera with a flange to sensor distance of less than 17mm. The flange to sensor distance of the Q is only 9.2mm. That allows more room for the optical elements.

How odd this is. The Q series was number 7 on the best selling mirrorless camera list in Japan for several years. But about 1 year ago, Ricoh stopped production, and I assume development as well. The tiny Q lenses have leaf shutters in them and so does the K to Q adapter. I assume this metabones adapter has a leaf shutter in it as well. And that would take some development to implement. So the first adapter they release is a Nikon F/G to Q with an advanced G aperture adjustment mechanism? Also, some development required for that. Is Nikon planning to resurrect the Pentax Q series with a 1 inch sensor in it? Is Ricoh still developing the series? Strange announcement but also interesting and unexpected for sure.

If this Q666 has a Leaf Shutter in it, it's very interesting for Astro : your ~5600 mm F5 Newtonian (~$200 1000 mm) becomes a ~2800 mm F2.5, allowing you to bypass the 30 sec. limitation by getting 4 times the light... If it has No Leaf Shutter, the limitation is even worse, down to 2 sec., making the Q666 of no interest at all ! https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7467909648

Latest in-depth reviews

The Fujifilm X-H1 is a top-of-the-range 24MP mirrorless camera with in-body stabilization and the company's most advanced array of video capabilities. We've been shooting with one for a while now and have put together a gallery, a sample video and some preliminary analysis.

Panasonic's Lumix DC-GX9 is a rangefinder-style mirrorless camera that offers quite a few upgrades over its predecessor, with a lower price tag to boot. We've spent the weekend with the GX9 and have plenty of thoughts to share, along with an initial set of sample photos.

Panasonic's new premium compact boasts a 24-360mm equiv. F3.3-6.4 zoom lens, making it the longest reaching 1"-type pocket camera on the market. We spent a little time with it; read our first impressions.

The Panasonic GH5S is best understood as an even more video-centric variant of the GH5. We've tested it in a range of circumstances to see whether the video improvements are worth the loss of stabilization.

Latest buying guides

Landscape photography isn't as simple as just showing up in front of a beautiful view and taking a couple of pictures. Landscape shooters have a unique set of needs and requirements for their gear, and we've selected some of our favorites in this buying guide.

Quick. Unpredictable. Unwilling to sit still. Kids really are the ultimate test for a camera's autofocus system. We've compiled a short list of what we think are the best options for parents trying to keep up with young kids, and narrowed it down to one best all-rounder.

If you're a serious enthusiast or working pro, the very best digital cameras on the market will cost you at least $2000. That's a lot of money, but generally speaking these cameras offer the highest resolution, the best build quality and the most advanced video specs out there, as well as fast burst rates and top-notch autofocus.

Are you a speed freak? Hungry to photograph anything that goes zoom? Or perhaps you just want to get Sports Illustrated level shots of your child's soccer game. Keep reading to find out which cameras we think are best for sports and action shooting.

Ricoh has announced an updated version of its K-1 full-frame DSLR. The Pentax K-1 Mark II gains an additional 'accelerator' processor that enables improved image processing as well as a handheld version of its Pixel Shift Resolution mode.

For a limited time this summer, current K-1 owners will be able to send their cameras in for a circuit board replacement, essentially upgrading to a Mark II. They'll even get a Mark II logo swapped in on the front of the camera.

Panasonic has continued to develop its organic/CMOS image sensor tech, and the latest breakthrough is big: an image sensor that can shoot 8K at 60p, boasts incredible dynamic range, and has global shutter capability.

Services like Copypants and Pixsy help anybody find copyright infringers, send take-down requests, and quickly demand licensing fees and damages. But do these automated systems also open the door to prolific copyright trolls?

The new 5x4-inch field camera was designed by UK photographer and custom camera maker Steve Lloyd, and it promises to be lightweight, easy-to-use, unique, affordable and upgradable... as well as a bit funky.

Camera accessory manufacturer Really Right Stuff is relocating. The company is moving its headquarters from California to Utah, citing rising costs and promising 'expansion on every level' as a result of this move.

Fujifilm's new X-H1 sits above the X-T2 in the company's X-series APS-C lineup. At the X-H1's launch in LA last week, we sat down with the camera's product manager, Jun Watanabe, for a detailed look at the new camera.

The so-called 'Prosthetic Photographer' uses AI to continuously scan the environment for 'ideal' scenes. When it sees one, it uses electrodes to zap the photographer, forcing them to press the button and take the shot. It's an... interesting idea.

A helicopter pilot and his student claim a civilian drone was the cause of their crash landing last week. If their story is confirmed by an ongoing investigators, this incident would mark the first time that a drone has caused an aircraft crash in the US.

Lensrentals' Roger Cicala just tore down the Sony a7R III to see just how much Sony did (and didn't) improve the camera's weather sealing over its predecessor. The results are a "good news, bad news" deal.

Samsung just set a new solid state storage milestone with its new 30TB SSD, the Serial Attached SCSI PM1643. This monster was built for enterprise use, but we can't wait to see this tech trickle down to consumers.

On this week's episode of The New Screen Savers from the TWiT Network, DPReview Science Editor Rishi Sanyal talks with host Leo Laporte and co-host Megan Morrone about some of the newest tech trends in smartphone cameras.

A blockchain crypto-art rose based on a digital photograph by Kevin Abosch was just sold for the equivalent of $1,000,000 USD in cryptocurrency to 10 equal investors. If that last sentence made absolutely no sense to you, read on.

Swiss Olympic skier Lara Gut wiped out on a run last week, and slid straight into a group of photographers shooting the action from the sidelines. Getty photographer Sean Haffey kept on shooting as Gut slid towards (and eventually hit) him.

There was a time when Fujifilm mirrorless camera users may have felt the need to go to another system to shoot video. Thanks to a new camera and a couple of lenses, they suddenly have some sweet options.

The Rotolight Neo 2 is an LED light panel with the capability to fire its LEDs fast enough and bright enough to act as a strobe. Is it enough to make stills photographers re-think their old-fashioned speed lights? Read on and find out.

Sony has made something of a break-through in sensor development with a new backside-illuminated CMOS sensor that is capable of global shutter, a huge improvement over current CMOS global shutter technology.

Microsoft has released a new "Ultimate Performance" mode for Windows 10 Pro for Workstations—a mode that throws all power management out the window (so to speak) in favor of the best possible performance it can pull from your hardware.